sorry but capo it does not have anything to do with tuning at 432 ....we need to build a fingerboard for that with right scale
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=432+vs+440+comparison
How hard is it to use a search feature?
How hard is it to provide specific links?
You are clearly avoiding to answer.
I wonder why?
YT is HUGE, whatever I find can be completely different from what you are trying to "prove".
I suspect there is not much meat in your sandwich.
Exactly, how guitarists use a capo has nothing at all to do with 432Hz tuning. In the YT results above, there are two guitarists with two differently tuned guitars playing the same music, various pieces. People's comments are below the video. [Edit: might be the same guy playing twice, but this doesn't matter].
Last edited:
I thought it WAS a competition. A competition for your dollars.
Such “competitions” are considered “business”, and “business” cannot be interfered with in any way.
Not my dollars or perhaps your dollars, but there are plenty of other screaming fans to give her their dollars.
Such “competitions” are considered “business”, and “business” cannot be interfered with in any way.
Not my dollars or perhaps your dollars, but there are plenty of other screaming fans to give her their dollars.
Complete nonsense. A capo shifts the frequency. So does tuning down to 432 Hz. There is no physical difference. People who claim that tuning a guitar down by 2% makes a dramatic emotional difference, have to explain why tuning a guitar down 5.9% by moving a capo down one fret doesn't produce an equally dramatic emotional difference.
And no, you don't need to build a different fingerboard to tune to a different frequency. The spacing between frets is set by only two things: the scale length of the instrument, and the frequency ratio between adjacent notes in the perfectly tempered chromatic scale, which is 1.059463 to six decimal places.
Fret spacing has NOTHING to do with the absolute frequency of the open string. Think about it - the 82 Hz low E string on a guitar works perfectly with the exact same frets as the 330 Hz high E string, and so do the other four strings in between!
-Gnobuddy
You're missing the reality underneath the 432 Hz woo-woo.
The change from 440 Hz to 432 Hz means tuning every musical note down in frequency by 1.82%.
Moving a capo down one fret tunes down the frequency of every open note by 5.9%.
There is no physical difference between the two. The only difference is the amount of down-tuning, 1.82% vs 5.9%.
432 Hz is magic in the same way that "eye of newt and toe of frog" are magic in Macbeth. Just superstition.
But if it makes someone happy to believe 432 Hz tuning is magic, hey, it's a relatively harmless form of superstition. It doesn't hurt anyone. There are much worse popular superstitions out there.
-Gnobuddy
I thought the purpose of the capo is different - not to produce a small (less than half step) change in pitch, but to change it far enough to make some keys easier to play in. Without having to retune the guitar (hard to do quickly on stage). Snap it on, instant up-tune. Take it back off for the next number which doesn’t require it.
If you wanted to tune from A432 to A440 you‘ve go to go messing with the string tension.
If you wanted to tune from A432 to A440 you‘ve go to go messing with the string tension.
You are perfectly right, when you're wearing your musician hat. Now let's try it with scientist / engineer / mathematician hats on instead, and see if it looks any different. 🙂
Let's say you place the capo on the first fret, and play a basic beginner C-major chord. What you hear is a C# chord, because of the capo. The sound you produce contains three notes, C#, E#, and G#. If you play the full-fat six string version, some notes are repeated an octave higher, but they're still either C#, E#, or G# notes.
If you now remove the capo, and play the same shape, the guy with the musician hat on says you are now playing a C chord, rather than a C# one.
The guys wearing mathematician, engineer, and scientist hats, say instead that every note you're playing has been detuned by 5.9%.
My point was that the "432 Hz standard tuning" guys think that a 1.8% drop in the frequency of every musical note - produced by changing the 440 Hz standard to 432 Hz - somehow produces some dramatic emotional difference in the listener. But if that were true, the 5.9% drop in the frequency of every musical note that results when you slide the capo down one fret, should also produce a dramatic emotional difference in the listener.
But nobody says that - nobody says "If you play the song in E-major rather than F-major, everybody's heart will slow down, Donald Trump will be kind to kittens instead of stomping them to death for fun, and there will be peace on earth."
Are some people are so 'woo-woo' that they think a 1.8% frequency change is magic, but a 5.9% frequency change is ho-hum? That makes no sense to me.
You don't need to use a capo to produce this effect, of course. Competent musicians can play in any key on their instrument, so they could play the same song or instrumental first in, say, the key of C major, then in the key of B major, and you'd have the same 5.9% down-tuning of every note in the music.
I do use a capo sometimes to reduce stress on my left-hand (if the alternative is five minutes of nothing but barre chords), or to make a quick key change to suit a different singers voice, without having to transpose every chord to a new key.
I try not to rely on a capo so much that it becomes a crutch, though. For instance, I learned Greenday's "Boulevard Of Broken Dreams" in the key of F-minor / Ab major, no capo, nothing but barre' chords all the way through. Billie Joe Armstrong probably used a capo on the 1st fret and played it in E-minor. 😀
-Gnobuddy
Exactly, and an error of this magnitude was very common in the days of affordable record players with simple DC motors driving the turntable.
Some of those motors had a centrifugal switch built-in. A pair of contacts on the armature would open if motor rpm exceeded a threshold, cutting off current flow and slowing the motor back down. That was the only speed regulation mechanism.
If the switch constants weren't adjusted exactly right, the motor would stabilize at a (slightly) wrong rpm. All your records got played either a bit too fast, or a bit too slow. Heart-rates around the world didn't fall every time someone played a song on a slightly-too-slow turntable.
Other turntables and cassette players from that era used a two-transistor circuit to stabilize the rpm of a DC motor. The circuit was built around a very clever idea - if a DC motor had zero internal resistance, it would run at a constant speed, regardless of varying load, when fed a constant voltage.
What this circuit did, was behave like a negative resistance (output voltage would go up with increasing motor current). Under ideal conditions, the negative resistance just cancelled out the motor's own internal resistance, and the motor rpm would be very stable in spite of small changes in loading as the cartridge tracked from outer edge to inner edge of the record.
But of course ideal conditions never occur. The motor ages, brush resistance changes, internal resistance changes. Temperature changes affect both the external 2-transistor circuit, and the motor's internal resistance. Even if the resistance compensation was working well, the actual DC voltage would fluctuate a little, and motor rpm with it.
So you pretty much never got exactly the right motor rpm. With a turntable, you could maybe use a neon bulb and a strobe disc to tweak platter rpm by eye. With a cassette deck, you just accepted that playback pitch wouldn't exact.
I also remember turntables that used a synchronous AC motor, and a rubber idler wheel between motor and turntable. The motor shaft had a stepped-diameter brass adapter at its tip. Move the idler to the fattest step for 45 rpm, the middle one for 33 1/3 rpm, the smallest step for 16 2/3 rpm.
(There were spoken-audio "audiobooks" on vinyl, recorded at 16 2/3 rpm to provide long enough recording times. For speech-only recordings, 16 2/3 rpm provided adequate treble frequency response.)
How accurately were those stepped diameters machined into those little brass motor shaft adapters? I wouldn't be surprised if one step turned out to have a 2% diameter error compared to another. Which would produce a same-size pitch error from records played back at that speed.
Even today, if I tune a guitar accurately with a modern digital tuner, and then try to play along with a popular song that was recorded some decades ago (now played back on CD or from a FLAC file), a lot of the time I'll find that the famous old recording is not at standard concert pitch. I have to retune my guitar to that specific track, by ear. It might be a bit sharp, or a bit flat. No guarantees either way.
And then, when the next song on the same album starts, you find out that it is not at the same pitch as the preceding one. You have to tune your guitar over again.
Maybe the reel-to-reel tape recorder in the recording studio needed servicing when the original tracks were laid down. Maybe the guitarists just tuned to each other, and not to a tuning fork. Maybe the two songs were recorded on different days, with different temperatures in the studio, affecting the tuning of all the instruments that day. Who knows.
As a specific example, in the early 2000s, I started messing around with a bass guitar, trying to teach myself how to play it. I remember trying to play a minimal bass part along with "Every Breath You Take" by The Police. My freshly-tuned bass guitar sounded way out of tune - the original Police recording wasn't at 440 Hz standard tuning.
Later I took a few bass lessons from a teacher at a nearby music studio. I told her the story, and she was nodding her head before I finished. Turns out she has perfect pitch, so of course she knew that "Every Breath You Take" wasn't in standard pitch the moment she first heard it, decades earlier.
"Every Breath You Take" is a creepy stalker song. It shouldn't lower anyone's heartbeat, whether tuned up or down from concert pitch!
-Gnobuddy
More like 450Hz. Which is again ~~2% off "normal".
Song is creepy on several levels, and it is the #1 most-played on the radio song.
Song is creepy on several levels, and it is the #1 most-played on the radio song.
But they quote p-values so that is accounted for. Certainly its borderline at 0.05, so backup studies could be warranted.
Human hearing of pitch is pretty good as particular hair-cells respond to the same pitch reliably, and you have many of them to average over. Perfect pitch is certainly a learnable skill for some so the machinery is there (besides how else could you hear a small change in pitch).
However the point about confounding factors is main thing - they have not been separated out in the study. Barometric pressure can no-doubt affect stress (you have to breath more often on low pressure days for instance, and breathing and cardiac rate are correlated), so tests on separate days are probably pointless.
competition in the narrow sense would need a regulation.
So in music it's more a "evolutional" competition of who attracts more attention (more clicks).